Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

Recommended Posts

the7train, I don’t see what difference does it make. It really doesn’t. At most you’re only saving a few seconds. It’s not that serious.

You just want those stations closed for almost no reason.

 

 

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say it again, I don't see anyone campaigning to close Wall St on the (4)(5) and that's the same distance from Fulton and Bowling Green that 18 is from 23 and 14 on the (1)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18th Street's ridership is 190th, in the top half of stations citywide. That's a fair amount of people. They could overcrowd 14th and 23rd streets even if these stations were upgraded.

It also wouldn't really be worth it for local trains to bypass this station, since express trains already skip it. It would only save maybe 30 seconds for local trains, and you can already get around it easily.

It would be best to keep this station and stations like it open. Unless the station is seriously obstructing train flow in some way and has low ridership, I would keep it open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

They likely will not go back to the (J)/(Z) or normal (M) since those lines have to be NTT by the Canarsie shutdown, my guess is if they do, then it wouldn't be for long. It could be assigned to the (B) or (D), like some people suggest/foam over, maybe even the (A) or (C) but, honestly, it's not too supportable and there's no definitive answer, where it goes is anyone guess.

I'd also like to add on that they should be retired soon, once the R179's arrive, R42's aren't the best even to other old trains, so they might also be gone once all of Bombardiers lemons arrive, once again, gotta wait for the definitve answer(s).  

The R179s have arrived. Or at least most of them. Not sure where the (brownM) 's R42 cars will go, my guess is the (A) because the (C) did not have enough R32 cars, soon the (A) will have that situation with the (A)(C) fleet swap. Probably not the (C) because it will be full of the (A)'s fleet.

Most likely not the (B)(D) , they have R68s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the7train said:

I'm just saying, some stations are bunched up way too close to one another, meaning extra stops and longer journey times of trains. Combining them means you get to maintain the one station into a better state, and it saves an extra minute or two on journey time, which could fit another train to move passengers at a quicker rate. 

Saying that Stations be closed is one thing. But saying that they should be combined is another thing.

18 Street should stay since I've seen a fair amount of ridership there. (Despite not passing by there a lot). 

 

Edited by LGA Link N train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

the7train, I don’t see what difference does it make. It really doesn’t. At most you’re only saving a few seconds. It’s not that serious.

You just want those stations closed for almost no reason.

 

 

No no, I may be saying something really wrong here, but the point i'm trying to make is that passengers currently are complaining about both the look of stations and the amount of trains running. This is due to the limited budget the MTA has. Maybe the problem with the MTA and their money is that they have too many things to maintain, and what would make it easier is to simplify the situation. Take for example 18th St. Now I get it's a high ridership station. But it's really 4 blocks away from 14th st, and another 5 blocks away from 23rd st. The money used to maintain 18th st, could instead be used to improve and maintain both 14th st and 23rd st to have bigger platforms, ada requirements, screen doors, etc. For an extra 2-3 mins of walking, you save an extraordinary amount of money that could improve neighboring stations in anticipation of future crowds by closing one station. It doesn't have to be 18th st, I'm talking about stations anywhere in the system that are bunched up together (3-4 blocks apart). Is it really necessary for a station that's 3 streets up when I could walk the distance in 1 to 2 minutes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Saying that Stations be closed is one thing. But saying that they should be combined is another thing.

18 Street should stay since I've seen a fair amount of ridership there. (Despite not passing by there a lot). 

 

I'm not advocating for 18th st to be closed, I'm just saying is there a justification for having subway stations 3 blocks apart, when it's really a walkable distance.

 

1 hour ago, W4ST said:

18th Street's ridership is 190th, in the top half of stations citywide. That's a fair amount of people. They could overcrowd 14th and 23rd streets even if these stations were upgraded.

It also wouldn't really be worth it for local trains to bypass this station, since express trains already skip it. It would only save maybe 30 seconds for local trains, and you can already get around it easily.

It would be best to keep this station and stations like it open. Unless the station is seriously obstructing train flow in some way and has low ridership, I would keep it open.

Another station means more money to maintain it, money the MTA already lacks. Again, it's not 18th st that I'm stressed about, why that one station out of the 469 in the system??? It's an example of a station where I feel is way too close to another, and we could use the money needed to maintain it in other areas.

 

1 hour ago, Snowblock said:

I'll say it again, I don't see anyone campaigning to close Wall St on the (4)(5) and that's the same distance from Fulton and Bowling Green that 18 is from 23 and 14 on the (1)

I would advocate for combining the 3 "Wall Street Stations" into an interchange, I personally think it'd be better for the system to maintain 1 big station as opposed to 3 seperate stations that really just serve the same area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a case to be made for consolidating stations in instances where it would result in improved connections to other subway lines or buses. Examples of this include:

  • Lorimer Street and Hewes Street on the (J)(M)(Z) replaced by a new station at Union Avenue, with an in-system transfer to the (G) that was missed because of IND shortsightedness.
  • 103rd Street and 111th Street on the (7) replaced by a new station at 108th, allowing the busy Q23 to run straight up and down 108th Street instead of following the curvy route it does today.

However, in today's high-ridership and perpetually overcrowded subway system, I can think of no case where a station should be closed outright. The presence of a couple of lower-ridership stops on a line is not a massive inhibitor of capacity. However, risking the overcrowding of several other stations on a line would be a great inhibitor of potential capacity.

28 minutes ago, the7train said:

I would advocate for combining the 3 "Wall Street Stations" into an interchange, I personally think it'd be better for the system to maintain 1 big station as opposed to 3 seperate stations that really just serve the same area.

If the platforms at the three Wall Street stops - by which I assume you mean Wall (4)(5), Broad (J), and Wall (2)(3) - were to be connected through passageways, they'd still be for all intents and purposes three different stations. Connecting the IND and IRT at Court Square didn't make the maintenance of the (G) or (7) platforms any easier.

And what would be the point of this station, considering Fulton already does this just a few blocks north?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

There is a case to be made for consolidating stations in instances where it would result in improved connections to other subway lines or buses. Examples of this include:

  • Lorimer Street and Hewes Street on the (J)(M)(Z) replaced by a new station at Union Avenue, with an in-system transfer to the (G) that was missed because of IND shortsightedness.
  • 103rd Street and 111th Street on the (7) replaced by a new station at 108th, allowing the busy Q23 to run straight up and down 108th Street instead of following the curvy route it does today.

However, in today's high-ridership and perpetually overcrowded subway system, I can think of no case where a station should be closed outright. The presence of a couple of lower-ridership stops on a line is not a massive inhibitor of capacity. However, risking the overcrowding of several other stations on a line would be a great inhibitor of potential capacity.

If the platforms at the three Wall Street stops - by which I assume you mean Wall (4)(5), Broad (J), and Wall (2)(3) - were to be connected through passageways, they'd still be for all intents and purposes three different stations. Connecting the IND and IRT at Court Square didn't make the maintenance of the (G) or (7) platforms any easier.

And what would be the point of this station, considering Fulton already does this just a few blocks north?

Closing stations mean you can use the money originally intended to maintain the closed station to improve the capacity and accessibility of neighboring stations in anticipations of this "overcrowding".

I just don't get the concept of over serving areas with stations one block apart from each other. It's like the Wall Street Area, is there really a need for 3 stations, one block apart from each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post, but the MTA is already strapped for money, wouldn't it be better if instead of those 3 stations, you have one designated station bigger in capacity, and use the money for other areas that are underserved like Bronx? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question about SAS:

This may have been asked before, but why is phase 2 of SAS forecast to cost more than phase 1, despite the fact that it appears that less work will be needed? (Less track miles, slightly less stations, some track already built) Does the MTA just not want to underestimate the cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, the7train said:

It's like the Wall Street Area, is there really a need for 3 stations, one block apart from each other?

Yes - they're on three different lines with three different rider bases.

The MTA just added, a couple of years ago, weekend service to Wall Street on the (J). What makes you think, then, that that stop might be a candidate for closure?

Or would you propose closing either of the busy IRT stops at Wall Street?

Edited by officiallyliam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, the7train said:

Sorry for the double post, but the MTA is already strapped for money, wouldn't it be better if instead of those 3 stations, you have one designated station bigger in capacity, and use the money for other areas that are underserved like Bronx? 

Dude. You've been asked multiple times that these stations are still open because of ridership. 

Come back to me when you have the ridership levels of each station and explain to me how it WON'T overcrowd existing stations. Then we can talk. 

Don't say "let's upgrade this!" when the best cost-effective solution is....

LEAVE THOSE STATIONS ALONE. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thicctrain said:

The R179s have arrived. Or at least most of them. Not sure where the (brownM) 's R42 cars will go, my guess is the (A) because the (C) did not have enough R32 cars, soon the (A) will have that situation with the (A)(C) fleet swap. Probably not the (C) because it will be full of the (A)'s fleet.

Most likely not the (B)(D) , they have R68s.

If the 10 R32s at 36th-39th Street Yards as well as the 8 R32s that used to be stored at Fresh Pond Yard were kept for passenger service instead of going off for work service and out-of-service respectively, there would have been enough 240 R32s total for passenger-only service and would have been enough to cover half of the (A) 's fleet without eating into Jamaica and/or ENY's equipment. And the (C) would have been permanently full-length in general year round.

The constant R32 swapping is (or should I say was) unnecessary IMO which is why people including the local news media constantly complained about them till the (C) and (J) swap was made permanent.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Dude. You've been asked multiple times that these stations are still open because of ridership. 

Come back to me when you have the ridership levels of each station and explain to me how it WON'T overcrowd existing stations. Then we can talk. 

Don't say "let's upgrade this!" when the best cost-effective solution is....

LEAVE THOSE STATIONS ALONE. 

 

47 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Yes - they're on three different lines with three different rider bases.

The MTA just added, a couple of years ago, weekend service to Wall Street on the (J). What makes you think, then, that that stop might be a candidate for closure?

Or would you propose closing either of the busy IRT stops at Wall Street?

I'm extremely sorry all if you feel I'm talking nonsense :(

I just wish for the stations here to be clean and efficient like those in London and Hong Kong, and I just wanted to propose an idea for what would the best. I'll stop annoying you guys about this if you would like!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, the7train said:

I just wish for the stations here to be clean and efficient like those in London and Hong Kong

London has shorter stop spacing than the subway here.

It just goes to show that, yes, we could have clean stations if the MTA was better with funds, but closing stations is not the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

London has shorter stop spacing than the subway here.

It just goes to show that, yes, we could have clean stations if the MTA was better with funds, but closing stations is not the answer.

Astoria is a huge indication of this. All the mom & pop stores are closing, and only the mega-corporations that can pay the rent are staying. Foot traffic is essential.

 

http://weheartastoria.com/2018/01/30th-avenue-subway-closure-problems-astoria-closings-challenges-chains/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

London has shorter stop spacing than the subway here.

It just goes to show that, yes, we could have clean stations if the MTA was better with funds, but closing stations is not the answer.

do you think it's politics that's causing these problems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, the7train said:

do you think it's politics that's causing these problems?

Compare the way London's politicians treat TfL and the way New York politicians treat the MTA and there's your answer.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jemorie said:

If the 10 R32s at 36th-39th Street Yards as well as the 8 R32s that used to be stored at Fresh Pond Yard were kept for passenger service instead of going off for work service and out-of-service respectively, there would have been enough 240 R32s total for passenger-only service and would have been enough to cover half of the (A) 's fleet without eating into Jamaica and/or ENY's equipment. And the (C) would have been permanently full-length in general year round.

The constant R32 swapping is (or should I say was) unnecessary IMO which is why people including the local news media constantly complained about them till the (C) and (J) swap was made permanent.

IMO the R32’s should have been assigned to the (A) promptly after being transferred from Jamaica. Honestly the (C) was gonna be full length if the R44’s were around! So, I don’t want to hear crap about spare factor or that R32’s are too old to run on the (A) 24/7...  they could have then kept 50 R40M’s for (J) service and 24 R42’s for work service. Last time I checked, the R40M’s performed better than the R42’s that were spared. The constant transferring back and forth is and was unnecessary. It seems like the (MTA) is ran by entitled teenagers. 🙄🤦🏽‍♂️

Edited by VIP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VIP said:

IMO the R32’s should have been assigned to the (A) promptly after being transferred from Jamaica. Honestly the (C) was gonna be full length if the R44’s were around! So, I don’t want to hear crap about spare factor or that R32’s are too old to run on the (A) 24/7...  they could have then kept 50 R40M’s for (J) service and 24 R42’s for work service. Last time I checked, the R40M’s performed better than the R42’s that were spared. The constant transferring back and forth is and was unnecessary. It seems like the (MTA) is ran by entitled teenagers. 🙄🤦🏽‍♂️

Exactly. I really appreciate this. Thank you so much!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, VIP said:

IMO the R32’s should have been assigned to the (A) promptly after being transferred from Jamaica. Honestly the (C) was gonna be full length if the R44’s were around! So, I don’t want to hear crap about spare factor or that R32’s are too old to run on the (A) 24/7...  they could have then kept 50 R40M’s for (J) service and 24 R42’s for work service. Last time I checked, the R40M’s performed better than the R42’s that were spared. The constant transferring back and forth is and was unnecessary. It seems like the (MTA) is ran by entitled teenagers. 🙄🤦🏽‍♂️

Despite being a Teen (or to be more professional, an adolescent) myself, I actually agree with this statement. Though, I remember discussing with a friend here on transit forums back in messenger about the (MTA) funding being taken away by the state for lesser priorities. He then tells me that if that never happened, then the (MTA) would've been in a better position right now. With the 32's and 38's up for retirement and the 42's probably up for work service, and maybe the R44's would've still been around. 40M's at Jamaica/ENY. And so 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, the7train said:

No no, I may be saying something really wrong here, but the point i'm trying to make is that passengers currently are complaining about both the look of stations and the amount of trains running. This is due to the limited budget the MTA has. Maybe the problem with the MTA and their money is that they have too many things to maintain, and what would make it easier is to simplify the situation. Take for example 18th St. Now I get it's a high ridership station. But it's really 4 blocks away from 14th st, and another 5 blocks away from 23rd st. The money used to maintain 18th st, could instead be used to improve and maintain both 14th st and 23rd st to have bigger platforms, ada requirements, screen doors, etc. For an extra 2-3 mins of walking, you save an extraordinary amount of money that could improve neighboring stations in anticipation of future crowds by closing one station. It doesn't have to be 18th st, I'm talking about stations anywhere in the system that are bunched up together (3-4 blocks apart). Is it really necessary for a station that's 3 streets up when I could walk the distance in 1 to 2 minutes?

You are vastly overestimating the amount of money one saves by closing stations. It would take you 50+ years to save up the funds necessary to do platform expansions and the like. It really isn't worth it unless, as has been said, you're making connections easier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Byford in Toronto:

Quote

He also had to contend with a meddling mayor who, in the early days of his term, regularly called Byford at home at 3 a.m. with transit-related questions.

“Hey, buddy, this is Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, and I’m standing at the corner and I’ve got someone here who wants to know where their bus is,” said Ford, whose tenure was marred by abuse of crack cocaine and alcohol before he died of cancer in 2016, aged 46.

Byford would gamely agree to speak to the person that Ford was standing with, adding that Ford never sounded drunk or coked up when he called. In the end, Byford said he didn’t mind the late-night calls.

“Rob Ford was obsessive about customer service,” he says. “He looked after the little man.”

Byford intends to do exactly the same in New York, even though his hectic first few weeks had him admitting it was a bit like “drinking from a fire hose” because of the sheer enormity and complexity of the job.

Source: https://nypost.com/2018/04/07/new-transit-boss-might-have-the-toughest-job-in-nyc/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the people who ask for a swipe should consider not saying "suck my dick" when they get ignored.

That might make it so that people are a tiny bit more likely to help them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.